Liquid spacetime: A very slippery superfluid, that's what spacetime could be like

April 23, 2014

Credit: Jason Ralston/Flickr

What if spacetime were a kind of fluid? This is the question tackled by theoretical physicists working on quantum gravity by creating models attempting to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics. Some of these models predict that spacetime at the Planck scale (10-33cm) is no longer continuous – as held by classical physics – but discrete in nature. Just like the solids or fluids we come into contact with every day, which can be seen as made up of atoms and molecules when observed at sufficient resolution. A structure of this kind generally implies, at very high energies, violations of Einstein's special relativity (a integral part of general relativity).

In this theoretical framework, it has been suggested that spacetime should be treated as a fluid. In this sense, general relativity would be the analogue to fluid hydrodynamics, which describes the behaviour of fluids at a macroscopic level but tells us nothing about the atoms/molecules that compose them. Likewise, according to some models, general relativity says nothing about the "atoms" that make up spacetime but describes the dynamics of spacetime as if it were a "classical" object. Spacetime would therefore be a phenomenon "emerging" from more fundamental constituents, just as water is what we perceive of the mass of H2O molecules that form it.

Stefano Liberati, professor at the International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA) in Trieste, and Luca Maccione, a research scientist at the Ludwig-Maximilian University in Munich, have devised innovative ways of using the tolls of elementary particle physics and high energy astrophysics to describe the effects that should be observed if spacetime were a fluid. Liberati and Maccione also proposed the first observational tests of these phenomena. Their paper has just been published in the journal Physical Review Letters.

More in detail...

Quantum mechanics is able to effectively explain three of the four fundamental forces of the Universe (electromagnetism, weak interaction and strong interaction). But it does not explain gravity, which is currently only accounted for by general relativity, a theory developed in the realm of classical physics. Identifying a plausible model of quantum gravity (that is, a description of gravity within a quantum physics framework) is therefore one of the major challenges physics is facing today. However, despite the many models proposed to date, none has proved satisfactory or, more importantly, amenable to empirical investigation. Studies like the one carried out by Liberati and Maccione provide new instruments for assessing the value of possible scenarios for quantum gravity.

In the past, models considering spacetime as emerging, like a fluid, from more fundamental entities assumed and studied effects that imply changes in the propagation of photons, which would travel at different speeds depending on their energy. But there's more to it: "If we follow up the analogy with fluids it doesn't make sense to expect these types of changes only" explains Liberati. "If spacetime is a kind of fluid, then we must also take into account its viscosity and other dissipative effects, which had never been considered in detail".

Liberati and Maccione catalogued these effects and showed that viscosity tends to rapidly dissipate photons and other particles along their path, "And yet we can see photons travelling from astrophysical objects located millions of light years away!" he continues. "If spacetime is a fluid, then according to our calculations it must necessarily be a superfluid. This means that its viscosity value is extremely low, close to zero".

"We also predicted other weaker dissipative effects, which we might be able to see with future astrophysical observations. Should this happen, we would have a strong clue to support the emergent models of spacetime", concludes Liberati. "With modern astrophysics technology the time has come to bring quantum gravity from a merely speculative view point to a more phenomenological one. One cannot imagine a more exciting time to be working on gravity".

Related Stories

(PhysOrg.com) -- Some scientists call the cosmological constant the "worst prediction of physics." And when todays theories give an estimated value that is about 120 orders of magnitude larger than the measured value, ...

(Phys.org) —One of the more controversial theories of quantum gravity, which attempts to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity, is semiclassical gravity, which was proposed in the 1960s. As its name suggests, semiclassical ...

Smooth" or grainy? Is space-time continuous or is it made up of very fine (10-35 metres on the "Planck scale") but discrete grains, if we look at it very close up ? If the latter were true, scientists think, this would lead ...

(PhysOrg.com) -- Spacetime, which consists of three dimensions of space and one time dimension, is such a large, abstract concept that scientists have a very difficult time understanding and defining it. Moreover, different ...

Since black holes are the most powerful gravitational spots in the entire Universe, can they distort light so much that it actually goes into orbit? And what would it look like if you could survive and follow light in this ...

Spacetime may be less like foamy quantum beer and more like smooth Einsteinian whiskey, according to research led by physicist Robert Nemiroff of Michigan Technological University being presented today at the 221st American ...

Recommended for you

(Phys.org)—According to a new study, there are more familiar strangers in our lives than friends, coworkers, and all other acquaintances combined. Encounters with familiar strangers, defined as pairs of individuals who ...

An international team led by University of Arkansas physicists has discovered drastic changes in material properties occurring in a group of two-dimensional materials that are being investigated as candidates to power the ...

Researchers at the Division of Solid-State Physics and the Division of Materials Physics at Uppsala University have shown how the collective dynamics in a structure consisting of interacting magnetic nano-islands can be manipulated. ...

Physicists of the University of Würzburg have made an astonishing discovery in a specific type of topological insulators. The effect is due to the structure of the materials used. The researchers have now published their ...

Researchers have developed a way to use commercial inkjet printers and readily available ink to print hidden images that are only visible when illuminated with appropriately polarized waves in the terahertz region of the ...

An international team of scientists has succeeded in making further improvements to the lifetime of superconducting quantum circuits. An important prerequisite for the realization of high-performance quantum computers is ...

I have no issue when it is proposed that space-time is an emergent concept from a deeper reality,... however, it is metaphysics imo to suppose that space and time are themselves physical entities existing independently of their application in ordering experience. IOW, space and time are always USED rather than OBSERVED themselves. Step one is to detect a "time" and "space" particle, or develope a theory where these concepts are emergent,...

Beware of confounding the mathematical model with the physical reality.The link between the mathematics and the physics is analogy. We like the mathematics because it can be completely analyzed to make inferences from Start to Finish. It allows us to *describe* what we are observing in the physics. The physics is blissfully ignorant of the mathematics, but is the supreme arbiter of the correctness of the inferences.There is a universe of differences between claiming that spacetime IS a fluid, and the spacetime CAN BE DESCRIBED AS a fluid. The first is patently an error. Spacetime is simply spacetime. The second is *more or less* accurate, depending on whether one's measurements can identify differences between the *behaviors* of the physical elements (observed) and the mathematical elements (calculated).

How is quantum mechanics to be reconciled with gravitational theory when gravitational theory is fundamentally flawed. General Relativity doesn't deal with force, for that Newtonian mechanics are the added solution, solution plus solution does not equal a solution, a new set of equations need to be solved, they are non linear problems.

Also. The graphical representation of the space-time with bodies causing curvature is a complete misrepresentation and only serves to give the viewer the wrong idea. Truth of the matter is we do not understand why cocks have different rates at higher altitudes, only mathematical constructs to try explain ideas and those constructs are based on what is becoming questionable calculations.When Astrophysicists in this day and age divide by 0 to get infinity, I despair. Infinity is not a ruddy number how can it be defined by mathematics. A play on words is all it is.

Stefano Liberati, professor at the International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA) in Trieste, and Luca Maccione, a research scientist at the Ludwig-Maximilian University in Munich, have devised innovative ways of using the >>>>>>tolls<<<<< [should be >>>>>>>>tools<<<<<<<<] of elementary particle physics and high energy astrophysics to describe the effects that should be observed if spacetime were a fluid.

How are quantum mechanics to be reconciled with gravitational theory when gravitational theory is fundamentally flawed. General Relativity doesn't deal with force, for that Newtonian mechanics are the added solution, solution plus solution does not equal a solution, a new set of equations need to be solved, they are non linear problems.

Also. The graphical representation of the space-time with bodies causing curvature is a complete misrepresentation and only serves to give the viewer the wrong idea. Truth of the matter is we do not understand why CLOCKS have different rates at higher altitudes, only mathematical constructs to try explain ideas and those constructs are based on what is becoming questionable calculations.When Astrophysicists in this day and age divide by 0 to get infinity, I despair. Infinity is not a ruddy number how can it be defined by mathematics. A play on words is all it is.

Dr_toad

When logically resolved Einstein's field equations lead to the mathematical creation of a universe with no mass and also universe with mass, this is a glaring contradiction that appears to be totally ignored so are we talking theory here or scientifically observed and or lab replicated discoveries?. Theoretical law of dynamic interactions which gave birth to Aether in terms of gravitation is just that, theoretical. Every time gravitational theories hit a stumbling block they are patched with something we cannot observe or detect and can only see in mathematics. mathematics is not science, it is a tool science avails of. Anything derived entirely from mathematics is not scientific. Electromagnetic fields of immeasurable force are a product of colliding galaxies which displace plasma packed with charged particles and therefor immense electromagnetic forces can travel as a wave.

What if A were a kind of B?Problem is, some things (e.g., relativity, quantum mechanics) are not a kind of anything intuitive to humans.Perhaps humans should develop a way of theorizing that is independent of human experience and knowledge.If that sounds impossible to you, you are too old for the task.

What if A were a kind of B?Problem is, some things (e.g., relativity, quantum mechanics) are not a kind of anything intuitive to humans.Perhaps humans should develop a way of theorizing that is independent of human experience and knowledge.If that sounds impossible to you, you are too old for the task.

i suppose if we at least keep it in mind that something is theoretical that would be a start. Very tiresome, theory is all too often projected as points of fact by scientific media. We must always emphasis it is a theory, an educated guess and always advertise the contradictions and question marks, but this is not the case at all, anything contradicting a theory in astrophysics is called "mysterious" or "unexplained" but the aspects of a theory that new findings strongly contradict, are never conveyed to the public in a manner deserving science. Theories often provide limited deviation scope in the hunt for predicted outcomes.

aaron35

A vacuum or rather pressure difference is not a medium along which something travels. Nothing cannot be defined as a physical quantity, a lack of something is not a property. it is not a medium. The mutual attraction of mass and pressure difference constitute the vacuum of space. Several physical properties cannot be rolled up into a medium that 'fluid' can flow along it, even as a concept it seems a wee bit silly. Besides pressure difference, space is really not a perfect vacuum at all. It's full of matter, charged plasma solar winds traveling through the solar magnetosphere carrying every element known to science, charged particles, water. molecular clouds, and mater and energy from a myriad of galactic phenomenon and events.

aaron35

Apr 23, 2014

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

11791

Check out the google+ page of John Baez on #bigness – https://plus.goog...s%20baezScroll about half way down the page and on the right see the post entitled "Naming the unnamable". When you're done reading that, don't stop there—check out the other posts on #bigness. And remember, if it doesn't make you crazy, it will make you smarter.

I have no issue when it is proposed that space-time is an emergent concept from a deeper reality,... however, it is metaphysics imo to suppose that space and time are themselves physical entities existing independently of their application in ordering experience. IOW, space and time are always USED rather than OBSERVED themselves. Step one is to detect a "time" and "space" particle, or develope a theory where these concepts are emergent,...

I respectfully request you to STFU.

If spacetime were a kind of fluid then particles would move through it and displace it.

If spacetime were a kind of fluid then it would be what waves in a double slit experiment.

aaron35

aaron35

I'm probably going to get fried here for this but I have a pretty simple explanation for gravity. Space aether/fluid/foam/whatever it really is, is basically almost non compressible like water. Gravity is the stress placed on space by the displacement of it by the energy making up atoms and the various smaller bits that create them. The more energy or matter the more displacement stress on local space. It wants to expand back to where it's displaced from and so it/gravity pulls everything in the stressed area back toward the center of the displacement. This is one reason I don't think the people looking are ever going to find any gravity waves. As the displacement stress spreads out in space it becomes smaller and smaller to the point where it would no longer be measurable. OK .... fire away.....

aaron35

Dark dark energy is made by antihydrogen fusion discharging photons at extremely high energy. This new witnessed discovery is the missing link to sprites and how earth biosphere ionosphere dimensional world were created. . Relativistic Perturbation Mantle is made of antihydrogen fusion wrapped in carbon and liquid oxygen creating a 12 ft 2 dimensional disc that starts in our world briefly then disappears while converting carbon maybe graphene to photons.

Dark dark energy is made by antihydrogen fusion discharging photons at extremely high energy. This new witnessed discovery is the missing link to sprites and how earth biosphere ionosphere dimensional world were created. . Relativistic Perturbation Mantle is made of antihydrogen fusion wrapped in carbon and liquid oxygen creating a 12 ft 2 dimensional disc that starts in our world briefly then disappears while converting carbon maybe graphene to photons.

Nothing cannot be defined as a physical quantity, a lack of something is not a property. it is not a medium

This is rather philosophical question. For example, the water surface serves as a medium for surface waves just because it doesn't pose any obstacle for them - so it behaves like nothingness from perspective of surface ripples. I'd rather say, the ideal medium is just the environment, which behaves like the nothingness for all forms of energy and particles transported with it.

Fortunately, this question is not necessary to solve in AWT, because no environment can behave like the ideal medium in this model - so we can always recognize it by its density fluctuations, frequency dependence of scattering and another phenomena. So that these philosophical questions are left for philosophers only.

Larry Krauss has said "Nothing is not nothing" DeGrasse Tyson "Nothing is something" In plain English a lack of anything is quantified now it seems, I completely disagree.

This is a science arena, why do people criticise and attack each other because they have different ideas, I noticed some very unscientific attitudes. Those that deviate from dogma are attacked and insulted.John Dalton received such ridicule for suggesting atoms were real. When Einstein was published in the 1900s the Milky Way was the Universe.if one doesn't agree with another idea, one must use science to either prove or disprove those ideas, not attack the proponent or reduce scientific discussion to childish insults.

All too often we are seeing theories thrown around as if they are scientifically observed and confirmed facts wit the aim of shooting down other unproven theories. Akin to trying to shoot blanks with blanks.

I have no issue when it is proposed that space-time is an emergent concept from a deeper reality,... however, it is metaphysics imo to suppose that space and time are themselves physical entities existing independently of their application in ordering experience. IOW, space and time are always USED rather than OBSERVED themselves. Step one is to detect a "time" and "space" particle, or develope a theory where these concepts are emergent,...

I respectfully request you to STFU.

I'll have to decline that request, and counter with a request of my own,... either engage in substantive counter arguments, if you have any, or STFU.

It boggles the mind to still see science claim 'Time' anything other than a human construct.I am in doubt of the very existence of space-time as a fabric or anything else.

Space is nothing but reference to distance on the z\y\z between objects, as is time jsut a reference to the rate at which events occur. How they have become physical objects it clear, through mathematics and nothing else, The gaps are filled in by dogmatic interpretation of research, like gravity. There is no 4th dimension or any other dimensions for that matter, not until Science detects and observes these elusive concepts. This is the mistake. Assuming it all to be fact limits deviance from predictions, in fact this dogmatic process can ultimately corrupt the perception of the researcher.

WMAP is a perfect example of this, what we are given as a map of cosmic radiation is the result of data processing. The very processing of the data has altered the results, in this case to match the required results.

What if gravity just works like a giant, massively extended electron cloud? Like if you view every massive particle as a "psuedo-atom" and imagine "gravitons" as being mass less "electron-like particles" which have no electric charge, but have a "gravity charge" instead?

This solves the "mass shadow" problem that other particle theories of gravity run into, by assuming that the gravitons orbit well outside each massive particle, and interact with other matter in the same way "atoms" share electrons in electron orbitals. When two objects interact gravitationally, they would be viewed as "sharing" gravitons in their respective graviton orbitals. This would be in contrast to other particle theories of gravity by having the gravitons be "semi-eternal" particles orbiting mass, instead of particles shooting out from mass to cross space...

With this interpretation, you could perhaps combine quantum and continuous aspects of gravity.

counter with a request of my own,... either engage in substantive counter arguments, if you have any, or STFU

Im sorry but there's no way to engage in substantive counter arguments about

'emergent concept from a deeper reality', 'it is metaphysics imo to suppose that space and time are themselves physical entities existing independently of their application in ordering experience' 'space and time are always USED rather than OBSERVED themselves'

-and other such empty philobabble poetry. It is DESIGNED to be unassailable. It is equivalent to 'god is the reason for everything' and equally as useful.

""[Others] note that my 'avoidance of the standard philosophical terminology for discussing such matters' often creates problems for me; philosophers have a hard time figuring out what I am saying and what I am denying. My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless—a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors." -dan dennett philosopher

Since you are unble to discuss any substantive topics, you must turn the discussion into one of anti-philosophy or anti-religion,.... generalizations to the point of vacuousness.

""[Others] note that my 'avoidance of the standard philosophical terminology for discussing such matters' often creates problems for me; philosophers have a hard time figuring out what I am saying and what I am denying. My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless—a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors." -dan dennett philosopher

I guess you don't see the irony in using a philospher to make your point?

I looked at Chapter 7 Spring-And-Loop Theory, where at the beginning it's stated, "This is where you are probably expecting a bunch of big words, some bizarrely-cursive formulas, and ten or twenty pages of patiently overwhelming prose to lay out my new model. Right?"

I guess you don't see the irony in using a philospher to make your point?

Irony? It is very indicative of the nature of formal philosophy that each generation of philosophers comes up with some novel way of discrediting all previous gens. And if theyre not quite clever enough they will just dig up some old philopap and call it neo.

"He reasons that therefore if something exists, it needs to be intelligible [but what of god??]

"Yet I should not confuse the ever-present logical subject of my every thought with a permanent, immortal, real substance (soul)... The soul is not separate from the world.

"Kant called this Supreme Being, or God, the Ideal of Pure Reason because it exists as the highest and most complete condition of the possibility of all objects, their original cause and their continual support. However, Kant's explication of the theological idea is notoriously unfathomable."

-So the critique is about the unfathomability of god or kant? Does unfathomability mean the same thing as unintelligibility? And if so does this prove that neither kant nor god could exist??

-And what about noumenons own assertion that reality is essentially unknowable? Does this mean that reality doesnt exist?? JESUS christ.

You've never read "A critique of pure reason", that much is clear, so of course it is incomprehensible to you, especially filtered through opinions of others and random context-free quotes from the wrong work, in an effort to argue a point no one made.

You've never read "A critique of pure reason"... so of course it is incomprehensible to you, especially filtered through opinions of others and random context-free quotes from the wrong work.

Translation: "Youve never received a formal education in philocrap, never developed an affection and devotion of the sort which would make you accept the fiction that philocrap offered anything of value, and havent invested a lifetime espousing a faith in said philocrap; all of which would be essential for reading said critique and appreciating the value of it the way I do."

-No I havent. I have however read the critiques of your critique and of your little hobby in general, written by people with all those accomplishments. And as I said I have waded in from time to time and towed out quotes like the crap about god and soul and consciousness I posted

I even skipped ahead to the Appendix to the Critique of Speculative Theology to see if there was such a thing. And there was!

There are also chapters (sections? surahs?) on The Transcendental Deduction, The Schematism, The Refutation of Idealism, Amphiboly of Concepts of Reflection, Transcendental Dialectic, The Paralogisms of Pure Reason, The Antinomy of Pure Reason, and (here it gets interesting) The Soul is substance, The Soul is simple, The Soul is a person, The Soul is separated from the experienced world, Refutation of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence, Refutation of the Cosmological ("Prime Mover") Proof of God's Existence, Physico-theological ("Watch Maker") Proof of God's Existence, and etc.

Oh I forgot a goody: The Architectonic of Pure Reason. Despite all the refuting we do know that kant put faith above evidence. For we find in abundance such crap as:

"Contingent things exist - at least I exist; and as they are not self-caused, nor capable of explanation as an infinite series, it is requisite to infer that a necessary being, on whom they depend, exists... And such a being is God."

I looked at Chapter 7 Spring-And-Loop Theory, where at the beginning it's stated, "This is where you are probably expecting a bunch of big words, some bizarrely-cursive formulas, and ten or twenty pages of patiently overwhelming prose to lay out my new model. Right?"

In no uncertain terms: Right.

Where's the math?

Spring-And-Loop Theory is a model. The only two numbers that are locked into the model are (1) springs are Planck-sized and (2) springs move at the speed of light.

I'm probably going to get fried here for this but I have a pretty simple explanation for gravity. Space aether/fluid/foam/whatever it really is, is basically almost non compressible like water. Gravity is the stress placed on space by the displacement of it by the energy making up atoms and the various smaller bits that create them. The more energy or matter the more displacement stress on local space. It wants to expand back to where it's displaced from and so it/gravity pulls everything in the stressed area back toward the center of the displacement. This is one reason I don't think the people looking are ever going to find any gravity waves. As the displacement stress spreads out in space it becomes smaller and smaller to the point where it would no longer be measurable. OK .... fire away.....

And you actually have the nerve to claim that this crap has anything to do with science??

What crap? You're the one posting a bunch of irrelevant philo/religious stuff, not me. And you where told on multiple occasions that I don't believe in god or souls, ... so why are you posting about that? The only area that is relevant wrt Kant is that pertaining to an analysis of reason and validity and scope of knowledge which obviously has to do with science, if science is proposing that we acquire knowledge of reality.

What is it about my first post that you object to? Or do you even know?

Spring-And-Loop Theory is a model. The only two numbers that are locked into the model are (1) springs are Planck-sized and (2) springs move at the speed of light.

The theory needs someone good at simulation to further it now.

I'd say try here for starters: http://www.openso...?ID=7565See if that may be at all useful to you, then click on the link "EJS MODELING" and there's also a link for "SIMULATIONS", and there's even a link for "DISCUSSION".

Out of curiosity, when the speed of light changes as was stated at the site you linked to, what happens to the fine structure constant?

Regarding the FSC, it is something I had looked at, and I was aware of some measurement variations (the "is it actually constant" question).

To fully answer the FSC question is non-trivial, because each of the variables in that equation have to be viewed from a Spring-And-Loop Theory perspective, then figure out which are increasing or decreasing.

Within the FSC we have, basically, e^^2/hc. c is decreasing, h is unchanging. So the question is "e". Reviewing the vacuum permittivity, it is inversely related to the magnetic constant" (or vacuum permeability), and c^^2.

After several rounds of this, quite a few constants have been brought into the picture. Hence my "non-trivial" assessment. I gave up working on it due to lack of "mainstreamness" of the constant. But maybe it is worth it.

Tantalizing problem, made even more so by trying to fit a reply within this character-count limited comment box.

" I'm probably going to get fried here for this but I have a pretty simple explanation for gravity. Space aether/fluid/foam/whatever it really is, is basically almost non compressible like water. Gravity is the stress placed on space by the displacement of it by the energy making up atoms and the various smaller bits that create them. The more energy or matter the more displacement stress on local space. It wants to expand back to where it's displaced from and so it/gravity pulls everything in the stressed area back toward the center of the displacement."

The only area that is relevant wrt Kant is that pertaining to an analysis of reason and validity and scope of knowledge which obviously has to do with science

Obviously kants concepts of reason and 'validity' were derived directly from his religion.

"I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith." ― Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason

-This book is suffused with a priori declarations of god as the reason for everything. And so trying to extract anything meaningful about reason and 'validity' wrt science discovered since this gentleman died is about as useful as using the bible to learn about rabbits.

"The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you."

-Kants book is full of similar such insight.

"... it is requisite to infer that a necessary being, on whom they depend, exists... And such a being is God."

Its silly to talk about 'reality' without specifics. Reality of what? Reality of a specific set of experiments which enables scientists to postulate a theorem which is useful in repeating those experiments? Do these scientists look up the definition of reality along with the framework that reality requires for their experimental apparatus? Does the reality of what they had for breakfast what their wives said to them before they left that morning have anything to do with the validity of their experimental results?

What does the use of the word 'reality' add to the scientific process? Do scientists take courses in the universal nature of 'reality'? No of course not. There IS no such thing. Only philos do this. They sift through all the contrary defs by philos dead and gone, and work very hard to discredit those so they can come up with their own unique def, because that is the only way to measure progress in your 'field'.

Obviously kants concepts of reason and 'validity' were derived directly from his religion.

"I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith."― Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason

"Obviously" ??? LOL. The work is not even assigned generally until one is in graduate school,... so to one who has never even read it,.. that was a great joke. It was even shear luck that you managed to say the exact opposite of the truth.

The Critique has nothing to do with god or religion,.... in fact the work even dispels with the notion that metaphysical questions are compatible with reason.

That is what the quote means,... "I had to deny knowledge [of god, of souls, ...of metaphysics] in order to make room for faith.",... which is to say metaphysical notions can NOT be a source of knowledge, thus must be relegated to mere belief. This should have pleased you, had you not been so willfully ignorant in your anti-x crusades.

Pejico

The Critique has nothing to do with god or religion,.... in fact the work even dispels with the notion that metaphysical questions are compatible with reason

EXPLAIN:

"The Soul is substance, The Soul is simple, The Soul is a person, The Soul is separated from the experienced world, Refutation of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence, Refutation of the Cosmological ("Prime Mover") Proof of God's Existence, Physico-theological ("Watch Maker") Proof of God's Existence, and etc."

"it is requisite to infer that a necessary being, on whom they depend, exists... And such a being is God."

The work is not even assigned generally until one is in graduate school

Brainwashing usually doesnt take this long. You talk like padre pio when the bishop found the jar of carbonic acid in his study. 'No these arent acid burns! I suffer the passion of the christ!!

-You can claim there is some value to it. Heck I bet many philos do. But to scientists and the generalk pubic it is worthless.

Thanks for the link, I think it' a good paper. We lack proper terms as our vocabulary is based on classical experience. Spacetime is so superfluidic that it's been called a fabric. I especially appreciated the examples of opposing effects at higher orders, due more to the rules of maths than anything else.

I am a matter of mere decades ahead of the cutting edge of theorizing which this represents because I have been thinking this all along. The "superfluid" of space is indeed displaced by particles, which we all know in the realm of physics can be called "objects" and indeed, even a subatomic particle is a colossal object compared to a single one of those space units which comprise that superfluid. Furthermore, space - nay, space/time - has a mutable, and probably measurable (as a starting point for more research) density, as a factor of the proximity of its frame of reference to a colossal object like a planet or a star.

Correct, a moving particle displaces the superfluid. The particle has an associated displacement wave in the superfluid. In a double slit experiment it is the associated wave in the superfluid which passes through both slits.

A macro version of a particle and its associated wave can be found in the following video.

Pejico

Apparently, the superfluous space-time can model the quantum mechanics too. I presume that it's superfluidity arises from the fact, it's in neverending trembling motion like the sand dust mildly shaken inside of vessel.

The vibrations are required as the fluid used in the walking droplets is not a superfluid.

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid.

You are in a bowling alley filled with a supersolid. You roll the bowling ball. The bowling ball displaces the supersolid. The supersolid displaces the bowling ball as it fills in where the bowling ball had been. By definition, there is no loss of energy in the interaction of the bowling ball and the supersolid. This does not mean no interaction.

Q. Is the bowling ball displacing the supersolid or is the supersolid displacing the bowling ball?A. Both occur simultaneously with equal force and the bowling ball rolls on forever through the supersolid.

The Critique has nothing to do with god or religion,.... in fact the work even dispels with the notion that metaphysical questions are compatible with reason

EXPLAIN:

"The Soul is substance, The Soul is simple, The Soul is a person, The Soul is separated from the experienced world, Refutation of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence, Refutation of the Cosmological ("Prime Mover") Proof of God's Existence, Physico-theological ("Watch Maker") Proof of God's Existence, and etc."

1) How is it that I shot myself in the foot? The critique is full of notions about god and spirit and soul. It's like saying 'we can ignore all this religion stuff but this little thing in the corner over here is valid because it appears similar to QM and so we like that'.

2) But I didn't read it. I didn't even pretend to read it and understand it as most philos do. I read the quotes like

"it is requisite to infer that a necessary being, on whom they depend, exists... And such a being is God."

-and understand that Kants philothink is predicated on the divine. You and nou need to supply similar quotes where kant says that his ding an sich crap has nothing to do with his obvious belief that things are unknowable in their entirety because the creature who made them is himself unknowable.

It is obvious that Kants intent here was to maintain the mystery of god and his creations in the age of reason. As such he was only PR for the status quo. Typical philo SOP.

Oh btb those are not separate books but chapters right out of the critique itself. I guess you missed that? Why are you commenting on something you know absolutely nothing about? You don't even read the posts you respond to.

But I didn't read it. I didn't even pretend to read it and understand it as most philos do.

Then why are you commenting on something you admit to knowing absolutely nothing about? You didn't even read the book you quote. Kant is known as the first great epistemologist because of the 'Critique of Pure Reason', not because of his religious beliefs.

Then why are you commenting on something you admit to knowing absolutely nothing about? You didn't even read the book you quote

Im SORRY nou but that argument holds no weight. I don't have to have an intimate knowledge of Vedic scriptures to know they are only more of the same religious crap.

In the past when you've used that argument I have quoted many learned people whose opinion I respect, who DO have a thorough knowledge of the subject, and call it bunk. And I am happy to try to uncover additional weaknesses in such works as the COPR as I have done above.

How many philos are as educated as you who happen to disagree with you? It always turns out like this doesn't it?http://youtu.be/hf_XpLOYfog

But knowledge has a definition:1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

Therefore knowledge has a nature. Close examination to any degree of specificity reveals each category in the definition (facts, info, etc.) to be inherently described by numbers, objects, processes and logic (e.g., and, or, not, etc.). The objects have structure as elements of nature itself, ranging in qualities from abstract to geometric and topological with dimensions and functions likewise described with numbers and maths. So the nature of knowledge is mathematical and scientific. Moreover, its nature has been characterized as "power" by those minds that demonstrated exceptional cognitive abilities.

The Wheeler-DeWitt equation reveals that "Time" drops out, indicating that it is merely a metric to reference relative locations of particles as quantum forces dictate changes in positions. Einstein's "spacetime" may have actually been a recognition of this relation. Others (i.e., Minkowski) have extrapolated on the concept, taking it to non-physical interpretations.

The Wheeler-DeWitt equation reveals that "Time" drops out, indicating that it is merely a metric to reference relative locations of particles as quantum forces dictate changes in positions. Einstein's "spacetime" may have actually been a recognition of this relation. Others (i.e., Minkowski) have extrapolated on the concept, taking it to non-physical interpretations.

Yes, the intuition of space and time is useless in physics if taken to be a physical substance. Einstein had to take an operational approach, in defining time to BE a physical system (a light clock), and space to BE a physical system, a rod.

IOW, it's not that the light-clock is Measuring an substantive Time, ...as it is that time is Defined as the light-clock itself (and space, rod) which is used as component descriptions of invariant quantities, but themselves as physical systems, change depending upon relative velocity, acceleration, and gravitation.

Kant is known as the first great epistemologist because of the 'Critique of Pure Reason', not because of his religious beliefs.

-I know, among legions of posturing philos and no one else. This is because there IS no such thing as the 'nature of knowledge'.

It is pointless debating you then if you are so narrow minded that you don't even recognize that how we come to have knowledge can be analyzed.

..I have quoted many learned people whose opinion I respect, who DO have a thorough knowledge of the subject, and call it bunk.

I've given you a list of physicists who understand that epistemology IS important and have even quoted Einstein as saying so explicitly,... so then what is the point of relying on discovery channel boy, Krauss, as opposed to understanding first hand?

If you're interested in physics and think you are supposed to hate Kant because you were told to, Here is a book written by a physicist, who while he mentions Kant on nearly every page, disagrees with how Kant arrives at his conclusions, ... but admits to arrive at the SAME conclusion through purely physical argument.

Reading COPR directly is notoriously difficult, so it is IMPOSSIBLE for an 'anti-philo' person to be open minded enough to get through any of it. I forgive you.

Try the above book on physics, and you may find out why Kant was so important.

The ONLY way to debate Kant's ideas are to fully understand his writings yourself. Know thy enemy, not just as far as your concerned, the rumours.

IMO the contemporary scientists would have no problem with liquid space-time as such, but its consequential consideration would effectively falsify the existing cosmological models. In essence, in the above study the liquid space-time concept has been effectivelly refused, because of very subtle viscosity effects observed. This most pronounced one, i.e. the Hubble red shift is already attributed to metric expansion of space-time, so that it's ignored and neglected as a manifestation of liquid space-time.

the intuition of space and time is useless in physics if taken to be a physical substance

IMO these two notions are complementary and dual. Even the best aether model doesn't explain, what its particles are made from and vice-versa: it's difficult to imagine the space-time curvature and waves without some particle environment on background. The best explanation of vacuum particles are just density gradients of another space-time, recursivelly. From this reason my theory is called the AWT, i.e. the aether wave theory: it just explains, how these two concepts play together in nested emergent scheme of random dense gas: but their deeper explanation is not a subject of this model. Given the apparent problems, which the contemporary physicists have with understanding of this duality (which is still relatively simple), I wouldn't expect the deeper solution of this question in very near future.

Everything on earth adds to earth's gravity, as mass is added to mass the gravitational vectors line up. A large mass has a central outward gravitational vector from it's centre, each smaller piece of mass added formerly had it's own gravity but when it is added to the larger mass the gravitational vector is that of the mass it joined too. Everything on earth is this way including air everything so if all the mass on earth has the same gravitational vectors, all pulling towards the centre of the earth, then gravity would be a chain of electromagnetic fields that all vector to the gravitational force of the larger mass.

or not/ Just some thoughts, in this way there is no need for gravitons or the like.

Physicists are finally coming to the realization that all radiation has a fluidic nature. My studies of the electromagnetic properties of radiation began 22 years ago. Physics societies would not publish my papers since the material was in disagreement with quantum theory. So I wrote and published my own books about the subject. Space has very fluidic properties. It can be easily described by plotting the Mesny equations for radiation from an antenna (circa 1936). The diagrams show the swirling patterns that indicate the viscous property. The results were not unlike that described by Lord Kelvin! I was even able to determine the viscosity constant. See www.sciencs-site....vity.htm and other pages on this site. You can also see the plots of the Mesny equations.

So how does this def help scientists do what they do? Do they consult this def every time they design an experiment or formulate a theory? And how do philos help them do these things by expounding endlessly on the 'nature' of this 'thing' called 'knowledge'?

Please be specific and keep the use of undefinable words to a minimum.

Moreover, its nature has been characterized as "power" by those minds that demonstrated exceptional cognitive abilities.

Well you must be referring to mental giants like this guy:

"Haraway's argument stems from the limitations of the human perception, as well as the overemphasis of the sense of vision in science. According to Haraway, vision in science has been, "used to signify a leap out of the marked body and into a conquering gaze from nowhere." This is the "gaze that mythically inscribes all the marked bodies, that makes the unmarked category claim the power to see and not be seen, to represent while escaping representation."

While I admit that poetry writing can involve exceptional cognitive abilities, I am not appreciating how it helps scientists to do their work, apart from their chuckling and stress-relieving.

discovery channel boy, Krauss, as opposed to understanding first hand?

Who, this guy?

"His primary contribution is to cosmology as one of the first physicists to suggest that most of the mass and energy of the universe resides in empty space, an idea now widely known as "dark energy" and "In 2010, he was elected to the board of directors of the Federation of American Scientists" among many other professional accomplishments. I would have to say this is evidence he possesses sufficiently exceptional cognitive abilities yes?

Yes, the intuition of space and time is useless in physics if taken to be a physical substance

See now there you go pretending to be doing science with word spaghetti. Scientists do not yet agree on the exact nature of these things which leaves open the possibility that they are, in fact, physical 'substance'. Which would be contrary to your very excellent intuitive cognition. As usual.

It is pointless debating you then if you are so narrow minded that you don't even recognize that how we come to have knowledge can be analyzed... The ONLY way to debate Kant's ideas are to fully understand his writings yourself. Know thy enemy, not just as far as your concerned, the rumours

I UNDERSTAND that the book you love, a book about reason which you purport to be relevant to science, is FULL of religious references. This is not RUMOUR. You need to explain how you and other philos feel justified in snipping out bits and pieces of this book and presenting them as complete in themselves when, OBVIOUSLY, kant did not.

Kant OBVIOUSLY believed that cognition rests in the soul, or he wouldn't have expounded at length about it in his book. Where is the soul nou? In the metaphysical underworld? How does the soul color our perception and digestion of 'knowledge'??

I am sure Kants views on these questions are in there somewhere. Got a shovel?

Why are you wasting time with COPR anyway? Kant wrote on the subject specifically:

"Kant's great cosmological work of 1755, the Universal Natural History... provides the key to understanding Kant's metaphysical system of physical influx... it affirms causation between substances, for example between the soul and the body.

"... plan of this work is to show how "general laws of motion" and "the accepted law of attraction" can be used to explain the development of the universe out of an original chaos... In this way, he seeks "to discover the systematic factor which ties together the great members of the created realm in the whole extent of infinity"

"Kant's theological aims are also relevant to our concerns. The second way in which Kant's project in Universal Natural History goes beyond a mere extension of Newtonian science is in his attempt to reconcile the concept of a mechanical universe governed by laws with that of a teleological universe DEPENDENT ON DIVINE DESIGN..."

Why is it the most extremely complicated imaginations are always seemingly the answer to a puzzle. Answers can be found in our solar system. We need to understand what we can observe before going off and creating a myriad of fantastical imaginations in mathematics.Kirchhoff's law of thermal emission and the assertion it is universal regardless of materials HAS BEEN PROVEN wrong in the laboratory. Proven! Planck's law has Kirchhoff's law as part of the equation so Planck's law is in question yet this seems to be ignored. it certainly means yet another leg swept from under solar theory and gaseous formation of a star. 20-100 times less convection than modeled too from recent data, so heat transfer is not fast enough to output the energy in the fusion model. Only a third of the Neutrinos. Photosphere is 6,000c Chromoshpere is 1,000,000c, completely ad odds with the fusion model, impossible one might say. Stars form with 20% the mass required by gravitational theory.

Moreover, its nature has been characterized as "power" by those minds that demonstrated exceptional cognitive abilities.

Well you must be referring to mental giants like this guy: Haraway's…

You linked to the wrong Wiki page on 'knowledge'—the Wikiquote page on 'knowledge' is twice as long and is replete with examples of the minds to which I referred. The name 'Haraway' is not on that page. Heh, you know Kant is there.

There are gems of wondrous brightness Ofttimes lying at our feet, And we pass them, walking thoughtless, Down the busy, crowded street. If we knew, our pace would slacken, We would step more oft with care, Lest our careless feet be treading To the earth some jewel rare.--Rudyard Kipling

Why, the church has doctors as well. Four are held in particular regard.

"In the Western church four eminent Fathers of the Church attained this honour in the early Middle Ages: Saint Gregory the Great, Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, and Saint Jerome. The "four Doctors" became a commonplace among the Scholastics, and a decree of Boniface VIII (1298) ordering their feasts to be kept as doubles in the whole Church is contained in his sixth book of Decretals"

-Decretals. They can be found holding the reins of the holy Chair of st peter which is hung on the wall of his eponymous basilica in rome.http://www.discer.../?p=2538

Expounding, when done with the light of truth and verisimilitude, is what sets people free from their ignorance

But that is not possible with philospeak as it is a very refined version of ignorance.

But that is not possible with philospeak as it is a very refined version of ignorance.

Sounds like it would be pointless then to cover the definition of philosophy:> the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.- a particular system of philosophical thought- the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience

What's as rigorously defined as mathematics? So in everything else look for the gems therein, among those very refined versions of ignorance to which you refer.

> the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline

A scam. There is no 'fundamental nature' of these things. Any scientist will tell you this if you can get them to seriously consider it.

- a particular system of philosophical thought

This is a tautology.

- the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience

Philos have consistently demonstrated that they are not qualified to do this. Only scientists have the tools, the education, and the experience to do this.

Philos lose as soon as they use a meaningless philo word or evoke the name of one of their dead predecessors. They can SAY anything they want. They can SAY they are honestly exploring the 'nature' of this or that, by sitting around and thinking real hard and discussing amongst themselves.

But science has shown that this can only be done using the scientific method, by those qualified to use it.

What's as rigorously defined as mathematics? So in everything else look for the gems therein, among those very refined versions of ignorance to which you refer

'gems therein'. So you're infatuated with the poetry as well? Flowery speech only annoys non-philos and makes them suspicious.

But you guys love it don't you? Helps you maintain the self-deception that you know something about something or other. Even good for deceiving naive undergrads on occasion.

When people abandoned words as adequate descriptions of physical phenomena and began to use math, they began to make real progress. Meanwhile the academic philos were stuck trying to defend their word spaghetti, because their discipline consists of little else. As any religionist would, they resorted to politics and obscurantism. This only delays their demise.

When people abandoned words as adequate descriptions of physical phenomena and began to use math, they began to make real progress.

Nicely put but with the caveat that mathematics is a tool for greater understanding of physical things, mathematics should not employed to create physical things.Singularities, Black Holes, Dark matter, alternate dimensions, Neutron stars ect.

Pejico

I agree with the second line, unsure of the first, in that one can become so absorbed in mathematics that they can possibly lose touch with the context of the problem they are trying to work out. Maths for maths' sake.

Also, it is important when assessing concepts and possible contradictions that you actually translate the mathematics to words. Then you can clearly see contradictions. An example would be the moment the big bang occurred. The maths probably look good though if you translate it to English it goes like this. "The universe was initially a circumference of a circle, 0 size with infinite density and infinite temperature".

I don't care if the maths look good, this cannot be correct, it is a perfect example of losing sight of the problem you are trying to work out. You cannot have 0 size with infinite temperature, or infinite density\mass.

Please sign in to add a comment.
Registration is free, and takes less than a minute.
Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.